smart-npv-mcp

Check bank availability

check_bank_availability

Read-only

Check if the balance-report service supports a given bank by providing its bank ID. Returns availability status.

Instructions

[Premium] Check whether the balance-report service supports a given bank.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "bank_id": "<bank_id>"
    },
    "name": "check_bank_availability"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`bank_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Aug 1, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about the balance-report service and the 'Premium' label hinting at access constraints, but it does not disclose return format, error behavior, or rate limits. Thus it adds some value beyond annotations but not rich behavioral detail.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the key verb and resource. The '[Premium]' tag adds a small extra element but does not detract from readability. It is concise, though perhaps too sparse to be fully self-contained.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a boolean, an error message) or how to handle unknown bank_id values. It also lacks parameter details and usage scenarios, making it incomplete for an agent to reliably invoke the tool without additional assumptions.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has one parameter, bank_id, with 0% description coverage. The description only refers to 'a given bank', giving minimal interpretation of bank_id but no format, example, or relationship to get_banks. This does not sufficiently compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description explicitly states the action: checking whether the balance-report service supports a given bank. It uses a specific verb 'check' and identifies the resource and context ('balance-report service'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_banks.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided, but the purpose implies the scenario (verifying bank support before using balance reports). The description does not name alternative tools or exclusions, so guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.